Allowed

Anil Kumar. D v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018Bail Appl./3542/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a 59-year-old accused charged under sections 7, 8 of POCSO and 506 IPC, finding custodial interrogation not necessary despite the allegations involving live-in relationship disputes.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon executing bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Anil Kumar. D Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 3542 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 655/2018 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶7

ANIL KUMAR. D, S/O DAMODARAN,AGED 59 YEARS,TC 31/1099(11),BYE PASS ROAD, CHAKKAI,PETTA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.N.MANU THAMPI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:-:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

IAP

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶15

B.A. No.3542 of 2018

¶16

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

2.The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.655 of 2018 of the Thrikkakara Police Station, registered under Sections 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 506(i) of the IPC.

¶20

3.According to the prosecution, the applicant herein, a 65 year

¶21

old man, who is running a travel agency, is having a live-in relationship with the mother of the victim child. According to

¶22

the victim, she is preparing for medical entrance after completing her Plus Two course. She has a brother. Her father had divorced her mother about 12 years back and since then, the applicant has been residing with the family. In the month of February, 2018, the applicant touched her breasts and other parts of her body with sexual intent. It is further alleged that on 7.5.2018, while her mother was not at home,

¶23

the applicant entered her room and attempted to caress her thighs. She managed to thwart his advances and later

¶24

B.A.No.3542 of 2018 2

¶25

informed her mother. This led to the lodging of the complainant and the registration of the Crime.

¶26

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations are without basis. According to the learned counsel, the applicant was earlier married to one Sreelatha and he has two children in the wedlock. The applicant is now running a business in the name and style as “Southern Holidays”. There were monetary transactions between the applicant and the mother of the victim. He also had occasion to come across some indiscretions on the part of his partner. The mother of the victim is unemployed and he is the person who is supporting the family. When the applicant questioned the mother and demanded his money back, false accusations are now being levelled against him.

¶27

5.I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the case diary. It appears that prior to the lodging of the F.I.Statement, the mother of the victim child had submitted a complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Kochi. In the said complaint, she asserts that she was having a relationship with the applicant herein. According to her, the

¶28

B.A.No.3542 of 2018 3

¶29

applicant herein had taken away the hall ticket of her daughter and used to characterize her as a lady with loose morals. He also used to mentally and physically harass her. She also asserts that large sums of money was obtained by the applicant from her and her gold ornaments were also squandered away. Her request was to get back the amount and gold and to warn the applicant. It is pertinent to note that in the said complaint, there is no reference to any sexual harassment by the applicant. It appears that the statement of the brother of the victim child was also recorded by the investigating officer. In the said statement, the 15 year old boy, has made some unpalatable revelations about his mother. A deeper probe into the allegations are not warranted at this stage. The contention of the learned counsel that the applicant has been falsely implicated cannot be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances. I am satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the applicant in the instant case is not necessitous for an effective investigation.

¶30

6.In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days

¶31

B.A.No.3542 of 2018 4

¶32

from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above

¶33

order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i)The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶35

ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶36

iii)The applicant shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

IAP //True Copy\

¶42

P.A to Judge

Anil Kumar. D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar. D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P. Preejith Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Vinil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala

Premkumar Vs the State of Kerala